Messages in this group
* Re: [lbo-talk] A question ... about 9/11 (and other responses)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Effective use of Internet tools?
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A question ... about 9/11
At around 22/8/06 4:00 pm, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Ravi says:
>
>> I think the most plausible explanation is that Atta and gang with
>> financial support from Al Qaeda and some small amount of training,
>> were able to exploit the disinterest of the Bush administration to
>> fly large planes into buildings, causing [some of] them to collapse.
>
> Why is it that you think this is the most plausible explaination?
>
> Isn't it more plausible that adding 'to exploit the disinterest of the
> Bush administration' makes it a) more complicated and b) thus less
> plausible? I do agree that al Queda (as much as any dedicated opponent
> of the US) has a history of jujitsu-style attack mechanisms, and anyone
> wanting to carry out a plan like this would do themselves a disservice
> to not consider weaknesses in such a plan.
>
> But: simple disinterest doesn't make you complicit.
>
Exactly. I am not implying complicity on the part of the Bush administration, and to answer your other question, yes this could possibly have happened under others too. Whether that particular clause is needed (or not) is arguable, depending on what you think of sophisticated and large organizations (such as the U.S govt and those managing it). It (the clause) is not very important to me and was not implied in my initial post, so it may be dropped from consideration, leaving the question raised intact.
> Key to your line of questioning (and your explicit statement above) is
> that somehow "the Bush administration" was critical in/to the project,
Not so at all. I do not have a line of questioning, but rather question(s). These are all phrases you are using to in some manner thrust a motive or attitude upon me... perhaps in order to reveal to me what my "real" motives are?!
> So it comes down to: do you or don't you believe that 9/11 could have
> happened in the same way on 9/11/2000?
It does not come down to that at all, as shown above. That is not at the core of the question raised, which I have explicated in bullet form already. I can believe that it could have happened 9/11/2000 (which I do, at first blush) and still raise the question of how it is that it happened. In fact, the answer, that is emerging, to my question ("ravi, it is not so hard to fly these planes into buildings due to blah-blah") makes that clear i.e., that answer simultaneously answers the question and is applicable in both a 2000 or 2001 scenario, thus leaving my question meaningful and faithful to my explication of it.
>
>> I am personally puzzled by a few things, which could stem
>> from my own misunderstanding (Hence my words: What am I
>> missing? Is blah-blah easier than *I think*?).
>
> I think others have listed some pretty good sources that, at least for
> me, completely debunk any of the puzzling aspects of this issue. But
> the simple answer (aren't you looking for that?) is yes: what they did
> was in many ways easier than you think.
>
See, wasn't that easy to write? Rather than the theorizing and name-calling about generic smart dude or whatever it is you wanted to label me?
>> may I suggest that the problem lies in the need to slot me in
>> one or the other [typically binary] grouping?
>
> No, you may not.
>
Too late.
> And you also may not use the word 'slot' as a verb. :-/
Bah, humbug! As we used to say as kids, don't be an uncle -- or I may have to start calling you guys out on your spelling (and further, quoting style).
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Effective use of Internet tools?
At around 22/8/06 4:07 pm, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>> Do you think they may be useful?
>
> I personally think that conversation-based efforts are best handled in
> (plain-text) email. Wiki efforts are good for a large number of people
> who are in disperate parts of the knowledge space working independently;
> that is: I think that WikiPedia is the only significant useful
> application of the Wiki technology. The problems that I have with it
> for either a) large numbers of people working on a small number of items
> or b) as a replacement for a mailing list boil down to: there's no good
> effective way to track the 'discussion' ... RSS has provided an
> interesting way to map time-series events (such as posting to a blog) to
> what amounts to email, but I think a mailing list with a good archive
> and a decent search engine is better.
>
True. Note that I do not say that Wikis or blogs can be used as replacements for mailing lists. Rather, take the example of "social bookmarking" -- this could be one way to aggregate useful resources suggested by list members. Similarly a Wiki could be a way to save particular summaries or conclusions (or informative docs) in a version-controlled, collaborative, structured and hyper-linked format. Perhaps this latter application is less useful for LBO than PEN-L.
Thank you to all for the comments (thus far and future),
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/